I think you just proved @redlude97 correct.
Every time there’s one of these threads there’s a bunch of what appears to be 50+ men who get really riled up about Z2 vs intensity.
I’m usually at a loss because it just doesn’t seem that crazy of a concept that what works for one won’t work for all. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if doing more Z2 was a more sensible training approach for older athletes whose kids are grown and life demands have lessened to allow them to do traditional base and polarized.
I mean this with no disrespect, I’m going to be there myself before too long and I hope to be going strong like some of you are. I plan to be fully onboard the Z2 train when life makes such a thing remotely possible. I just don’t get why we argue about this topic as if there was only one answer.
And for my parting-shot humble-brag at the brittle fitness debate, I’ve gone sub-9 at Leadville the last 2 years on TR low volume plans. Proper fueling plays a far bigger role in extending my 2-hour fitness to all day fitness than “brittleness”. But I am fully ok with disclaiming that maybe I’m just a special little snowflake and individual results will vary.
11 Likes
You can make a solid case that doing more Z2 work as a younger athlete is more important since they lack the aerobic foundation when first starting out.
Whether they have the time for it is a different discussion.
2 Likes
As an anecdote. I raced xc last weekend on the back of on average 1 easy ride per week for the last 6 months plus around 3hrs running/wk.
I was really surprised how well I went.
Put it down to a lifetime of riding bikes. The opposite of ‘fragile fitness’.
1 Like
Well, you just prove the point. Sub 9 might be something to brag about when you are 50 and above.
So they just set a 9 hour cutoff for the big buckle because it was easy for people under 50?
Buddy of mine has gone 2:37 at the Boston Marathon and is a aerobic powerhouse, still under. 40 and hasn’t quite been able to crack 9 hours.
2 Likes
The problem with brittle or fragile fitness as a term is that it implies one could have trained differently on the same hours and have been a whole lot better. I’m not sure I buy it 100%. If you only have 3-4 hours per week to train, the result is going to be brittle when you show up to a big race.
The Jan Ullrich comment still cracks me up. If the Texan didn’t exist, we’d be thinking of Ullrich as the greatest doper of all time. Instead, Armstrong holds that crown. Ullrich was great (for his era, doping aside) - gold medal - world championships - TDF - Vuelta. How many riders achieve such a palmares?
5 Likes
Something like 215 out of 1100+ finishers did it under 9 hours in 2022. Seems like a solid result to me. 
2 Likes
One result in no way suggests that TR low volume plans are the best way to train for Leadville. Plus, we have no idea if the person was following a low volume plan to a T (3-4 hours per week?) or doing 5 hour endurance rides on top of it every Sunday.
Personally, I think people can train in a variety of ways and their genetics will get them 90% of the way there. They could choose the absolute best plan, best coach, best nutrition, etc. and get the last 10%. IMO…
I know so many very fast people who train sub-optimally by the standards of forum wisdom.
1 Like
My coach did sub 9s at Leadville and Steamboat in a single weekend, on almost no training. After 3 weeks in Europe in a car (race director for Team Echelon). And two weeks hiking in CA. Some people are blessed and are reaping the rewards of previous work.
You clearly have the whole package: genetics, a great engine + power to weight ratio + bike handling skills.
2 Likes
I am a consistently moderately above average athlete. I’ve never won a race in my life and typically finish in the top 3rd or so of most things but not higher than that.
As it pertains to the volume debate, I think I benefit from having started endurance training in my mid-20s and now have about 15 years to have built my aerobic base. I took a few years off from “training” in that time but stayed active with running and casual riding. Without this base and the experience of doing a lot of very long events in the past (multiple Ironmans) I don’t think I could extend from few-hour rides to all day rides as well. That said, I’m not sure how much the ‘historical base’ plays into it as much of the experience of knowing what a 9-12 hour event is like mentally and knowing how to fuel it. If you never ride more than a few hours then you inherently don’t get to practice the fueling and dealing with the emotional peaks and valleys you experience.
All that said, I’m not trying to argue that time-crunched style training makes me the fastest I could possibly be or that if I had more time to train I’d ramp both volume and intensity. The TR plans just have worked for me to able to still do the type of events I want with the relatively minimal time afforded to me with 2 full time working parents and 2 kids under the age of 4. That availability can change throughout the year, but is never more than about 5-7 hours a week at the high end, usually under 4.
This recurring debate has made some recent comments in podcasts from Coach Chad stand out to me. He’s recently commented on his experiences as an aging athlete and how hard it is to recover now might be giving him some different perspective about the ideal training approach for aging athletes. I’m interested to see if any of the plans or guidance changes as the TR crew ages themselves.
2 Likes
How much volume you can recover from as you age will be directly correlated with what else is going on in your life. If you have a hectic schedule and stresses you will not be able to recover and absorb as much as if your schedule allowed more down time and less stress.
2 Likes
Being British I have no idea if that is good or bad. What I do know is that I take an extended period off the bike (multiple months) the results aren’t pretty when I return.
1 Like
And
Thus top 25%.
I need good consistent volume for the speed. In 21 I’d dropped to averaging 6 hours a week and it showed. Mix of pandemic lockdowns, cancelled events I’d entered and lack of motivation to do more when I had nothing to train for. I guess my training had turned in enough to be reasonably fit and healthy but nothing outstanding relative to where I’d been.
Just over a year on I’m averaging 1.5 mph faster at 18-22 bpm lower heart rate. The difference; pure and simple volume rose to 8 hours a week in Winter 22 and climbed to 13 hours a week in summer. This last month I’ve averaged 10 hours a week. The extra volume, the Z2 rides that a lot seem to find boring, but I quite enjoy (always outdoors). The volume of intensity hasn’t changed that much since end of 21.
Again, we are getting onto, find out what works for you in the real world.
I’d also add past training history to the list. I’m quite certain that riding tons when you are younger (even without structure) will help your body adapt more quickly.
1 Like
Just as an aside: when I was a kid, watching them, I pretty much thought that every top contender in road racing was doping to one degree or another. It was one reason the thought of getting into the sport (as in competing) never really crossed my mind. Even before Armstrong was found it, it seems that most people interested in sports knew it already. So from that perspective, I considered the battles between Armstrong and Ulrich fair.
Were there top athletes from that period who were actually clean? I always thought that clean athletes could not compete with doped athletes at the time. (Honestly asking. I know this might be difficult, because most haven’t been exposed to the same spotlight as Armstrong and Ulrich.)
1 Like
I think you missed my point…I was not knocking his abilities. It was used as an example of the concept being discussed.